UVA vs. Barnard...HELP!

College Search & Selection
21

<p>mythmom:</p>

<p>My "ideas are reminiscent of that group??" My "ideas" are about perceptions (misperceptions, I agree) that really are out there. I don't say I'm agreeing with them-- at all. I am saying that, very often, the way women's colleges write up their attributes, they spend so much more time on the schools with which they are connected (no matter how closely or loosely) and less on what they, themselves, can offer-- that I think it's a mistake-- for the very reasons I've pointed out. AND it adds to the misperceptions.</p>

<p>I have no idea what I wrote that you're not getting, but I give up. I don't know if it's a problem with critical reading, or comprehension, but this is really why so many people have lately opted out of CC altogether. No matter how clearly one writes, people read whatever they want and respond accordingly. I find it very tiresome and time-consuming. I think I'll be following, very shortly, these others who have given up. </p>

<p>I also have no idea who has "bashed" Barnard on this thread. I haven't read any posts that have done that. </p>

<p>You also never answered my question, which really was a serious one. Since you say they are the same school, are the applications and admissions qualifications for Barnard and Columbia the same, too? I honestly don't know. Sounds like they are, but can you answer that question?</p>

22

<p>Never mind. Found an old CC thread that went through this question pretty thoroughly already. Mine was an innocent question; didn't realize it had already been covered, fairly contentiously, it seems. Thanks anyway. Adding the link here, which might be useful to the OP.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=168550%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=168550&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Hint: best to not voice a strong opinion in either direction, lest another thousand-page thread ensue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't know if that was meant for me or someone else, but agree that CC has become a place where any other viewpoint other than the mainstream (usually those with the loudest voices) on any particular thread will be shut down, pronto, by those mainstream voices. Lots of censorship going on, it would appear, by other posters.</p>

24

<ul>
<li>A thread which is best left to die, as the participants of that sub-forum have themselves indicated.</li>
</ul>

<p>The relationship between the schools is completely confusing, and mythmom's comments reflect a common impression of someone who hasn't spent too much time on CC. Hint: best to not voice a strong opinion in either direction, lest another thousand-page thread ensue.</p>

<p>I think everyone who has looked at this will agree with the following:</p>

<ul>
<li>Technically, for whatever historical reasons, Barnard was set up as a sister school to Columbia. Like Harvard and Radcliffe. It is formally incorporated into Columbia University, but as an affiliate institution. Just like a few other institutions including Teacher's College. NOT as a fourth undergraduate college of Columbia University itself. It has a separate administration, trustees, facilities and security staff, admissions,etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>-Technical distinctions aside, as a practical matter, Barnard students share clubs, teams, extracurriculars, social life, and courses with Columbia students. On average Barnard students take 30% of their courses at Columbia. Columbia Students take a similar number of courses at Barnard.
-Graduates of all the affiliate colleges, including Barnard, receive their degrees from Columbia University.
- Barnard professors have to pass through a Columbia University tenure process, in addition to the one at Barnard
-A number of academic departments at Columbia and Barnard coordinate in hiring efforts, to improve course coverage and minimize duplication.
- a few departments where Columbia students can major are entirely housed and staffed at Barnard
- students at both schools have wide acccess to each other's facilities, though not dorms.
- Grades from each school are counted on each other's transcript and GPA weighting, I believe.</p>

<p>This seems to be a unique (at least since Radcliffe disappeared) relationship.</p>

<p>Facebook does not determine the technical relation of the schools, one way or another. It is true that Barnard is part of the Columbia Facebook group, but in the same fashion Claremont Mckenna, Pomona, etc. are all part of the "Claremont" facebook group. This reflects the commonality of these people as one "greater community", socially, not the technical formal relationship among the schools. And it was done by Facebook, not the school administrations. To this early point anyway, my daughter would prefer it if Barnard was not comingled with Columbia this way.</p>

<p>Barnard was my daughter's first and only choice. She preferred Barnard's ambiance,location, and its program of studies. The extra course selection available via the institution across the street was an additional plus.</p>

<p>She did not make her college decisions based on what somebody else thought about it, or what school they said they attended, etc. She focused on what seemed to be the best environment for her. Suggest OP do likewise, whatever that may mean for their situation.</p>

25

<p>"Don't know if that was meant for me or someone else.."</p>

<p>Someone else.</p>

<p>"...but agree that CC has become a place where any other viewpoint other than the mainstream (usually those with the loudest voices) on any particular thread will be shut down, pronto, by those mainstream voices."</p>

<p>You're not agreeing with me, that's not my viewpoint at all. What I've seen mostly is nobody being shut down. Rather everyone keeping going, leading to the "thousand-page" boxing matches, one of which you linked to above. Hardly CC at its best.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
CC has become a place where any other viewpoint other than the mainstream (usually those with the loudest voices) on any particular thread will be shut down, pronto, by those mainstream voices. Lots of censorship going on, it would appear, by other posters.

[/quote]
I don't see that. What I see is that there are some posters on CC who make critical and careless comments and then complain bitterly when people disagree with them, and accuse those who disagree of being "mean."
[quote]
I also have no idea who has "bashed" Barnard on this thread. I haven't read any posts that have done that.

[/quote]
Well, how about this:
[quote]
I even know someone who didn't get into Columbia, but got into Barnard. She now tells everyone she goes to Columbia (and even puts it on her Facebook page). What does that tell you?

[/quote]
I consider that comment to be mean-spirited, gossipy, and unkind. I would absolutely put it in the category of "Barnard-bashing". Look: I have no dog in this fight. No daughters in college, no connection to Barnard, Columbia, or anywhere else east of Reno. But when I read through that thread linked to above, I was disgusted. Not with the girls at Barnard, but the (hopefully few) insecure pipsqueaks at Columbia who apparently feel a need to announce their precious self-perceived superiority over the girls across the street - frequently by making comments similar to the "What does that tell you?" comment quoted above. This was my comment on the subject in that thread:
[quote]
Guys, here's the view from the left coast: In Morningside Heights, you ask someone where they go to school, they should tell you "Barnard" - because there the answer will be meaningful. Every mile further from campus you get, the more sensible it is to answer "Columbia". Why? Because most people have never heard of Barnard, any more than they've heard of SEAS, the Fu Foundation (which I learned of this week) or, for that matter, Wharton, Boalt, Haas, Tisch, Sloan, or any of the other specialized - and prestigious - academic units of major U.S. universities. And guess what? No one cares, either. That girl who told you she was going to "Columbia"? She wasn't trying to "impress" you - she just didn't want to explain what the heck "Barnard" was for the 43rd time and figured you were just aware enough to know that "Columbia" was a college somewhere in New York. And outside of New York, even "Columbia" isn't a sure thing. West of the Hudson more people have heard of Notre Dame or Penn State or UCLA than Columbia.

[/quote]
...and I'll stand by that. I figure CC is as good a place as any to express stern disapproval of the gossipy types who denigrate students at another school based on projected assumptions about "prestige." </p>

<p>As to a LAC advertising that it has an ongoing relationship with a nearby major Research University for cross-enrollment in courses? My feeling is that they'd be morons not to tout that asset. If my daughter were looking at two LACs - one which was in West Nowhere with the only academic assets available those which were provided within the boundaries of the 2000 student campus, and the other was, for example, the Claremont consortium, where the facilities and resources of five colleges, each with a different emphasis, are available to all students - yeah, that would be a factor in the enrollment decision. It doesn't mean that Pomona students are Scripps wannabes, or vice versa - it just means that each of those schools has something other LAC's may not enjoy. </p>

<p>Don't project "prestige-hunger" onto these schools or their students, and then criticize them for it. They don't deserve that.</p>

27

<p>Kluge:</p>

<p>That comment about the girl who only tells people she goes to Columbia, not Barnard, was not "Barnard bashing." It was told to point out that there does seem to be, on the part of an actual Barnard student, the feeling that the OP actually worried about. See her original post. </p>

<p>I do think that's something to worry about, and I think it's a shame. As I pointed out in subsequent posts, these women's schools would do well to try de-emphasize, to some degree, the connection-- and maybe play up the differences (which are positives) better. If they are one and the same school, then Barnard is simply across the street offering female dorms. Instead, play up the positives a little more of their individual strengths and differences (rather than playing up the connection so much). That's all I'm saying.</p>

<p>Clearly, the girl I mentioned was feeling "less than," for whatever reasons, and that's a shame. (Not Barnard bashing-- more a criticism of this particular person and why she might feel that way). Perhaps it's because of her parents, or perhaps she gets that sense from Columbia students. She may be a rarity, or she may not, but it's worth it to determine that (if you're considering the school).</p>

<p>I have "no dog in this fight" either and could actually care less. This was an issue the OP brought up; clearly, by the very fact that a few posters get so upset about it, she was right to worry-- it would seem.</p>

<p>I won't reiterate my earlier points. I was quite clear. I do think that individual women's colleges do themselves a disservice by, perhaps, playing into the other connections a little <em>too</em> much in the recruitment brochures. There's a way to do that without having the effect of, "well, gee, if those other schools are so great, why not apply to them directly?" Perhaps all they need are better ad agencies.</p>

<p>Whew. I'm done. Good luck to you. You would do well to learn how to critically read yourself.</p>

<p>My final comment to the OP is simply that UVA and Barnard are very different schools. Again, I would suggest finding one that combines the best of both of these schools (or should I say all 3 schools?) ??</p>

28

<p>We found the distinctions Barnard vs. Columbia were sufficiently evident to my daughters, using the existing recruitment materials, other resources and their own senses.</p>

<p>It's hard to imagine a great many Wellesley prospectives deciding that they should just apply to MIT instead. No matter what the Wellesley ads say.</p>

29

<p>moneydad: Once again, I think that (at least in 2004, with the Wellesley brochures), they mentioned it so much, that it almost seemed like a joke after a while. The implication is that Wellesley isn't enough in itself (which I know is completely untrue)-- so they push all that these other connections--truly a bit too much. All I can say is, this was my daughter's reaction. Perhaps she is completely unique and a rarity. (Oh, wait. She actually is -- so, never mind!) ;)</p>

30

<p>We got those same brochures, at the same time, and did not come to that conclusion. Again, using all resources and senses at our disposal. Wellesley actually wound up as the bridesmaid in D1s college selection.</p>

<p>She was actually one of those who probably would have taken some courses at MIT. Which is not to say that she wanted to attend MIT and be forced to take a year of biology, or whatever other unpalatable (to her) forced science requirements they have.</p>

<p>Each of these schools has different programs of study, distinct ambiance, etc. which my kids were able to perceive through their selection process. With no great difficulty.</p>

31

<p>Oh, I guess that's where we differ. My daughter actually likes the sciences and does well in them--not a turn-off to her at all. She was not seriously interested, in the end, in any of the above-named schools back in 2004/05. So really a moot point. </p>

<p>Just thought I'd offer my thoughts here; obviously shouldn't have bothered.</p>

<p>Obviously, perception varies. While my daughter could obviously "perceive" the differences, she simply found it a bit annoying and exasperating to keep reading about the "other" connections so much. Just a little observation I thought I'd share-- clearly a mistake (way too many thin skins!) ;)</p>

<p>So great; sounds like everybody is happy with their chosen schools, so no problem. </p>

<p>All the best to you and yours! :)</p>

32

<p>"I don't see that. What I see is that there are some posters on CC who make critical and careless comments and then complain bitterly when people disagree with them, and accuse those who disagree of being "mean." "</p>

<p>change "mean" to "thin-skinned".</p>

<p>BTW, in case it wasn't clear, nobody in my family is associated with Wellesley. And kluge stated non-association with any of the named schools.</p>